[T]he most interesting choice, from my perspective: as Kenya sealed its border with Somalia to prevent the escape of the Islamic Courts fighters (at the request of the interim government and the Ethiopians), the U.S. used naval forces off the Somali coast to try to block Islamic Courts fighters’ escape by sea....

[T]he choice to declare that policy at all seems remarkable to me. Of course U.S. forces generally do their best to chase al Qaeda operatives around the world — specific people who have done the U.S. harm or have tried to do the U.S. harm. But the Islamic Courts must have had many more supporters than the small number of people there who specifically have attacked the United States (or even our allies). Most people fighting in Somalia presumably cared most about stability in Somalia or, perhaps, Islam in Somalia. Somalia is apparently relatively homogeneous ethnically and religiously, but clan (and subclan) differences lead to a constant struggle for power there; some people seem to think that Islam might serve as a uniting and stabilizing force there. If the U.S. is now in the business of rounding people up solely because they supported an Islamic government, are we not substantially expanding the list of adversaries in the War on Terror?

One last point -- the problem right now with U.S. policy is not that it's tried to strike at Al Qaeda suspects in Somalia, which is perfectly justified. The problem with U.S. policy is that this action is taking place after three years of Abu Ghraib revelations, four years of futile war in Iraq, five years of revelations about faulty U.S. intelligence, five and a half years of internments in Guantanamo, and nearly six years of bellicose rhetoric from the Bush administration. In this context, even justifiable military actions come with terrific amounts of blowback.

posted by Dan on 01.12.07 at 08:55 AM

Comments:

I don't think it's that much of a puzzle. Looked at strategically, it makes sense - denying Islamists a stable region from whence they can either support, harbor, or propagate terrorists. Quibble with its effectiveness, but it's at least coherent. I wrote it out in much more depth at my blog.

But you agree that the U.S. just has a problem with Muslims running countries, a point Gholz makes? Really?

"the problem right now with U.S. policy is not that it's tried to strike at Al Qaeda suspects in Somalia, which is perfectly justified."

Why is it justified for the USA to simply kill "suspects" without showing any proof (or even evidence) that they pose a risk or threat to the USA? And that is excluding the problem of killing all the innocent people who go with this "strike" that the USA admits didn't even do what it tried to do.

Why do you think the USA has the moral justification to do this at all; it is senseless and idiotic. You believe in the rule of law for yourself, but vigilante/gangster justice for everyone else. Just because the USA is the most powerful does not mean it necessarily has to be the biggest gangster. But the fact that people like you support these views seems to institutionalize that it is. You know, it can never last. Eventually the people on the street rise up against these actions. That’s what 9/11 was.

As for the more strategic question, the USA is continuing to dig its own grave in the world. It has the power to attack bomb and attack spot on the globe, but doing so almost never promotes peace and stability in the world. So what happens now? The USA has forced out the Islamists in Somalia, but what do you think happens next? The "transitional" government of Somalia is not exactly a credible institution. The Islamic Courts gained power organically, not on the backs of American and Ethiopian tanks. I actually agree that “democracy” is the best way to maintain stability and prosperity. But clearly the USA does give one sh%t about democracy. They only care about their own power. And being so powerful, giving up power would be the most democratic thing the USA could do if it was serious about helping to protect itself and make the world a better place for all. Save from that, at least they could use popularity (rather then subservience to Fascist American policies) the determining factor in where it apportions its support.

At least the Courts seemed half-way capable of imposing order - and should they have gone Talebanesque, that is too far for the populace, one might have counted on a Northern Alliance type constellation of clans to oppose.

Instead, one has chaos and the very warlords who have been the problem for the past decade, a la Mohammed Farah Aidid.

The confusion by the first commentator of Islamist ipso facto with al Qaeda merely reflects the ongoing confusion and impoverished, ill-informed framing of American engagement with the Islamic world. Makes the Americans terribly easy to manipulate by the corrupt warlords though, merely point at a principled religiously based opposition and scream "Islamist"...

(which is not to say the Islamic Courts were not foolish idiots in sabre rattling against Ethiopia, giving the nasty war-mongering dictatorship there an excuse....)

"The problem with U.S. policy is that this action is taking place after three years of Abu Ghraib revelations, four years of futile war in Iraq, five years of revelations about faulty U.S. intelligence, five and a half years of internments in Guantanamo, and nearly six years of bellicose rhetoric from the Bush administration."

Isn't the problem with the current policy that it comes approximately 16 years of Somali anarchy too late and belies a concern for those territories that act as safe havens for terrorists to begin with?

The Lounsbury,
The first commenter wasn't necessarily confusing Al Qaida with Islam. He was talking about killing Al Qaida members. If the US bombed Morocco it'd be a different matter.

There'll still be people with Qaida leanings in Somalia, but that's a very different thing from Somalia being a haven for them. It is exceedingly useful, I understand, to have places where your recruits can train in peace, to whence your operatives can retreat and hole up if there is trouble. There's Al Qaida types in London, too, but the problems are different.

Joe: Growing "organically" through violence is not the same as "democracy". I'd also quibble with the idea that the Islamic Courts were entirely without foreign assistance.

More than that, they were trying to take down the remaining government. If the Ethiopians had remained outside, the result would not have been stability, it would have been bloodshed. The only difference would have been that it was an Islamic Courts offensive and an Islamic Courts victory.

As it is, we have a flypaper that draws forces away from Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. We have: destroyed training camps; killed terrorists (the US killing a prominent terrorist, Ethiopians and Somalis killing a lot of less prominent chaps); gained bucketloads of intelligence (when terrorists live in a place, the locals find out about them; when they leave, the locals can talk); freed Somalia from a group that would not have allowed democracy so that, with time, a democracy can emerge; created a circumstance under which AU peacekeepers are reasonably likely to allow that to happen; and created an environment in which aid could be given without moral compromise.

I'm an Orthodox Christian and I don't often get to cheer my somewhat pinko non-American (American Orthodox tend to be OK) co-religionists. I've been very happy at the opportunity for the Booyah.

I guess I should point out to The Lounsbury that Hussein Mohammed Farah Aidid, the son of Mohammed Farah Aidid, is in fact Interior Minister of the Transitional Government, which is illustrative of the potential for former tribes to choose to share power and avoid fighting.

It's also worth noting that the Islamic Courts supported Ethiopian rebels in the eastern regions, and had officially sided with Eritrea in the stalemated border war... so it makes sense for Ethiopia to get involved. And, given the failed (and CIA-engineered) attempt to create the very Northern Alliance-type organization in the west to combat the ICU, it made sense for the U.S. to throw its support behind Ethiopia.

In other words, for once, the U.S. was in fact behaving in a predictable way, guarding its interests in the region (which include stemming sea piracy, hence the large littoral force) with a minimum of interference. I'd hardly call nailing one of the 98 embassy bombers a miscarriage of justice.

I guess I should point out to The Lounsbury that Hussein Mohammed Farah Aidid, the son of Mohammed Farah Aidid, is in fact Interior Minister of the Transitional Government, which is illustrative of the potential for former tribes to choose to share power and avoid fighting.

You wrote this and actually believed it eh?

It illustrates the cynical play for money, says fuck all about the clans (clans mate, clans) or even better the warlords actual intention on the ground to operate as a proper national government and end the extortions and enclaves.

Indeed, merely weeks into this, and already all the signs are there that it's reversion back to 'normal.'

I do not expect to be pleasantly surprised at all in this matter.

It's also worth noting that the Islamic Courts supported Ethiopian rebels in the eastern regions, and had officially sided with Eritrea in the stalemated border war... so it makes sense for Ethiopia to get involved.

Well, if by officially supported you mean shot their mouths of, yes.

They were utter morons for giving the Ethiopian government a pretext. Naive amateurs.

But Ethiopian state interest isn't really the question here.

And, given the failed (and CIA-engineered) attempt to create the very Northern Alliance-type organization in the west to combat the ICU, it made sense for the U.S. to throw its support behind Ethiopia.

No, it did not make sense.

The Somali side of the anti Islamic Courts is a hollow shell, and unlike in Afghanistan, there isn't even the pretension of support to the supposed government.

The Americans have sided with chaos over order, for the mere fright taken by the name Islamist, this not even being so well-timed as to, as in the case of the Talebans rule, come when some large portion of the native population was heartily sick of brutality in the new order.

In other words, for once, the U.S. was in fact behaving in a predictable way, guarding its interests in the region (which include stemming sea piracy, hence the large littoral force) with a minimum of interference. I'd hardly call nailing one of the 98 embassy bombers a miscarriage of justice.

Well, the US was indeed behaving in a predictable way, although that hardly has much to recommend it, insofar as ending up being needlessly implicated in the bloody intervention of a nasty dictatorship which will push along the chaos of Somali is hardly a win - the piracy noted being of course a nice little sideline for the warlords returning to power.

As for the 98 bomber, well, again, the US habit of using massive air force for little direct gain, but much damage to its image confounds. Rather reinforces the image of the fearful clumsy giant lashing out.

Whacking the fellow is one thing. Taking out a village to do so, another.

It seems quite clear that order, in Somalia, was in the offing with Islamic Courts rule. The areas under their control were settling into ordered peace. Not a pleasant one perhaps, but as Iraq should teach, armed chaos in Hobbesian bloodletting is far less attractive than dictatorship.

The Courts clearly had some skill in putting together, in real operative terms for Somali society as it is, not as one would wish it to be successful government.

I am certain, of course, that within a reasonable time frame they would have reached an inflexion point where they would either moderate or take a hard Taleban turn, leading to collapse.

Ethiopian intervention has not even that somewhat grim level of improvement, and as a non-indigenous (to Somali society) intervenant, has fuck all of a chance to set up something durable.

In the end rather than making pious wishes for Somalia, it's far better to let indigenous Somali solutions develop - and not get irrationally scared by Islamists or the mere phrase.

It's worth remembering that Ethiopia and Somalia are traditional enemies. The Ethiopians took the Ogaden plateau (ethnically of the Somali tribes) while the Brits, French and Italians were carving up other bits.

There have been wars between the two before - notably during Mengistu's regime. The last time a Somali government was friendly with Ethiopia - far less using Ethiopian helicopters to travel - the opposition referred to the Siyad-Mengistu agreement (basically Mengistu could move Ethiopian troops away from Somali borders to focus on Eritrea, Siyad could move Somali troops to try and crush the rebellions in the north of the country) as being like the Hitler-Stalin pact.

A lot of the complaints from Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti was focused on the Courts' support for "Greater Somalia" as much as their Islamism. The US may, possibly, be making adversaries in the War on Terror but I think the Somali nationalist element is important and has, largely, been missed.

I believe you correctly highlight the Somali or pan Somali aspect as important, and indeed with respect to the neighbours, with little doubt the real driver with respect to Ethiopian intervention.

Of all the actions of the Courts, the most foolish and stupid was the Greater Somali rhetoric, which was pointless, premature and worse, ill-advised giving Ethiopia the pretext to take action (for all it was likely merely the mouthing off of idiots without real content).

It is hard to blame Ethiopia for taking this amiss at one level, for all that the war-hungry idiocy of the Ethiopian regime in its pointless conflict with the equally nasty Eritrean regime leads one to suspect the error was harldy necessary to motivate them.

None of this makes the US support and involvement intelligent or well-considered.

I have very little knowledge of Somalia specifically, but it is obvious where this is going. Rather then promoting a general peace and keeping out of Somalia's domestic matters, the USA explicitly backs one side against the others. Regardless of the politics, this can only isolate one faction and embolden the other. Similarly to what happened in Iraq, the isolated side is basically forced into a guerrilla warfare situation. By gaining control of most of the country a few months ago, the Islamic Courts Union proved that they have generalized support in Somalia, they proved that they can fight, and they proved that they are generally organized. OK, great, the USA and Ethiopia can bomb and send troops in to the country for a little while, but what happens when the Courts regroup? When Ethiopia actually starts having to fight battles and when Addis gets hit by "terrorist" attacks (like using an army to kill your enemies means you are not a "terrorist")? Where do we go next? And this provisional government, which was picked by the UN, it would be idiotic to believe that they have any more legitimacy then the Iraqi Governing Council did or the current Iraqi "government" does. I mean, I don't know anything about Somalia, but these are just obvious factors that come into play.

So what are we left with? A useless government of a failed state that can't go anywhere without a convoy of foreign troops, a population that is subjected to more war and violence, a defeated movement that will undoubtedly regroup to fight another day, and the great superpower picking its friends like it does its nose (just digging for anything it can find (remember Saddam in the 80's?)). The current conditions might last a couple months, but past that and I have no doubt that conditions will get worse yet.

The Lounsbury said:
"The US at an abstract level is perfectly justified in going after al-Qaeda operatives.

Court and legal system are not always appropriate solutions."
---
There are really two issues here, the practical and the theoretical. Practically speaking, it is flatly counter-productive for the USA to just bomb any country it wants, whether it is actually bombing "al-Qaeda" or just missing and blowing up pharmaceutical plants or wedding parties or anything else it hits. that is even without getting into the point about how accurate American "intelligence" is and assuming that they actually know the first thing about who bombed the embassies and who are serious "terrorists" and such. Obviously, considering the epic stupidity of the WMD claims, i have absolutely no faith that they know what they are doing on any level. So maybe you believe they know who they are shooting at, but i do not.

On a theoretical ("abstract") level you are wrong as well. courts and legal systems might not be the fastest way, they might not be the easiest way to deal with your enemies, but they are the most comprehensive and most just. they create the lowest level of resentment and the highest level of transparency. Plus, they promote the ideas of cooperation and help institute and solidify the rule of law. gangland violence, while tempting to a gangster, only makes the world less safe. Creates more violence, justifies the response to the action. If I were living in Somalia and my brother was mysteriously bombed by the Americans, I would spend the rest of my life figuring out how to kill the Americans. Under a system where law, openness and justice are taken into consideration, I would spend that time figuring out the best ways to deal with the situation legally.

Needless to say, 9/11 was a response to all the gangster violence the USA has done to the world. If it keeps it up, there will only be more pain for everyone...

James, the problem was not with targeted strikes to take out actual Al-Queida members. The problem is with the Ethiopian invasion. The invasion will return Somalia to, if the Ethopians are smart, hopeless, parasitic, warlord-run gangsterism, or if they are dumb and stick around, a full-on guerilla war within less than a year. Baghdad looked fairly calm in April 2003. Don't be fooled.

It's almost certain that the US could have earned the cooperation of the Islamic courts to deal with anyone planning on attacking the US, or dealt with such people without their help if neccesary. What was completely unneccesary was returning Somalia to an Ethiopian dictatorship. By taking actions such as this, we are inviting the same endless development failures that spawned groups such as Al-Quieda in the first place.